Archive for the ‘Sluts’ Category

Today CH will introduce you to the theory of the Rubicock. What is the Rubicock? Reader PWN explains it well.

lol, if you want a girl that didn’t sleep around, you must be either her first boyfriend or her second boyfriend. After that, the dam breaks and it might as well be 45 men. There are plenty of girls who hold out, some guy pops their cherry and by the next year they fucked two dozen men.

Ain’t that the truth. So many women, after having drunk enough truth serum, will eventually confess to “wild times” in their lives, when they went cock crazy, usually after a break-up or, as PWN notes, after a long dry spell followed by a drought-busting dicking. Once the chaste girl’s sugar walls are chafed by her third ride on the cock carousel, all her self-control flies out the window. She’s primed for regularly scheduled poundings, especially if she’s left her early 20s behind and still single.

I’ve heard it so many times from women who were considered by their girl friends the “virgins” of the cluck. It goes like this: She has an anonymously urban night when she throws all caution to the wind out of frustration, and the next thing she knows, she’s getting new dick monthly, departing with a quickness from the relative chastity of her pre-Rubicock dating history.

That’s the Rubicock: The cock notch number that, when a girl crosses it, accelerates her descent into debauched sluttery.

It’s like, once the snatch seal is broken, her womb trembles and the four horse cocks of the apocalypse pour molten semen into her damaged psyche.

If you’re interested in long-term loving with a woman that comes with threat of financial loss, it’s a good idea to avoid committing to any woman who has crossed the Rubicock. There’s a good chance you won’t be the last Rubicock line she crosses.

Mark my words, a massive elite push to legitimize and maybe even codify polyamory is next on the agenda.

A day ago, a mainstream Hivemind megaphone had an article about some old skank who slept with a bunch of losers while her cucked beta husband — although bless him he managed to prevent this feminist crone from reproducing — meekly acquiesced to his wife’s spiritual eatpraycumguzzle journey. Oh, and the raging narcissist wrote a book about it all.

Get ready for “The Wild Oats Project.” And not just the book. Get ready for “The Wild Oats Project” phenomenon — the debates, the think pieces, the imitators and probably the movie. Get ready for orgasmic meditation and the Three Rules. Get ready for “My Clitoris Deals Solely in Truth” T-shirts.

The reader who forwarded the article noted, “Are you psychic? Right on queue the mainstream media shows up with a trial balloon for polyamory.”

Psychic? Only a little. Mostly, leftoids are just really easy to read.

Yep, open marriages full of wonder and free of hostility or jealousy will be the newest old frontier the replicant Leftoid Industries will attempt to normalize as authentically human. After that’s accomplished (bet on it), gay pederasty is next.

Legal and social sanction of polyamory is not the same as widespread embrace of the sex at dawn lifestyle. That hoped-for popular embrace of polyamory by the left-behinds of society may never come, if current arrangements are indicative of future compositions. FACT: Most open polyamorists are hideously ugly. Polyamory is not the free choice of physically and psychologically attractive people. FACT: The typical nasty three-way in a willingly conjoined open relationship is one leather-faced high T cougar whose labia could survive the chemical bath of deep sea volcanic vents, one wretched, low T omega male “primary” whose job it is to sniff the cuckcum in his wanton whore’s granny panties and masturbate, and one slightly higher T (or, more accurately, lower E) beta male who couldn’t afford an internet connection for better quality virtual vagina.

Ad revenue for major Hivemind media organs has been dropping like a stone. I guess they’ve decided to say “fuck it” to serious journalism and let loose with the technicolor ejaculate of their gnarled ids.

There are scores of CH posts in the archives dealing with game for married men: How to (re)seduce your wife, and how to seduce applicants for mistresshood. But there aren’t many posts about picking up married women. An odd oversight, or a tribute to a latent moral code in the heart of CH?

Nevertheless, we feel it is important to give it all to the reader: The light, the dark, and the chaotic. To shy from forbidden topics would be a refutation of everything the Heartiste abides.

Will writes,

this is what I do if they are married or have BFs (you’d be surprised how many girls wear fake rings to weed out the weak.)

Anyway, the line is simple

Alpha-In-Training:” so, let’s grab a drink sometime.”

Cougar: “Oh! That’s so sweet, but I’m engaged, see my ring?”

AiT: “Hey, it’s just coffee”
::hands her the phone with the ‘New Contact’ screen already open::

C: “I shouldn’t…”

AiT: “How about this, I’ll shoot you a text and you can think it over.”

Works like a charm.
The above does two things. It demonstrates that you are persistent and get what you want. Secondly, she has plausible deniability. You’ve given her jiminy cricket a way to justify her giving out her number.
It sails right past any objections in a smooth manner.

The “it’s just coffee” and “I’ll shoot you a text and you can decide.” win 80% of the time.

I’m of the belief, perhaps optimistic, that a married woman truly, deeply in love with her husband cannot be seduced to betrayal. If I’m right, the problem remains: Just how many married women truly, deeply love their husbands? In this diversifying, slut parading, trust-cratering society we call a nation, vows of fidelity seem quaint. How many wives would you trust to uphold their end of a marital contract when every signal and every noise encourages female empowerment through perfidy?

Will is basically correct about the two premises that must be established when picking up married women. One, you’ve got to foresee and neutralize objections. This is obvious. Married women aren’t going to jump to pressure tactics. It’s too easy for them to lean on the crutch of their back-at-home hubbies when the heat comes between their legs. This means, in practice, giving her hamster a lotta room to spin. You’ll be courtly aloof, but with white hot sexual intent communicated all the same.

Two, all you need is her number. Unless she’s aggressively seeking an excuse to cheat, an insta-date isn’t likely an option. Secure her digits, then text her once later, maybe even a few days later, so that the temptation to sin simmers in her.

The happily married woman can’t be “taken with extreme prejudice” like the single woman. She will need to feel like she’s exercising some control over the proceedings, and she will need to feel like she can walk at any time.

On a related subject, a buddy I knew sometimes wore a fake wedding ring when he departed for the hunt. The first time he did this, I told him it was counterproductive. Surely, most girls will balk at getting hit on by a married man? He smiled, and said, “I have a line with this ring. ‘Oh, I’m not married. I just wear this ring to scare away stalker girls.’ Or I say, ‘It keeps away unwanted attention.’ It really messes with their heads. It’s like when hot girls sometimes wear fake wedding rings so they don’t get bothered by guys all the time. I’m telling them the same thing, except with the sexes reversed.”

Like this:

Conventional wisdom has it that raw sluts aren’t the prettiest girls in school. The conventional wisdom is mostly right about sluts. CH has noted (archive hunt alert) that the sluttiest sluts tend to fall within the mediocre to cute range of female looks. Most sluts are 5s, 6s, and 7s. Proportionate to their demographic ratio, there are not as many slutty 8s, 9s or 10s. Likewise, but for a different reason, neither are there many slutty sub-5s.

(I’m using the term slut in its common parlance: A promiscuous girl. This doesn’t necessarily mean she has a lot of sex partners; it could mean she’s impulsive and will sleep with a man on a whim, or jump from boyfriend to boyfriend on flimsy pretexts.)

The disproportionate representation of moderately attractive girls among sluts is a function of being just cute enough to get banged out by alpha males* but not hot enough to get commitment from them. These cute-ish girls are in the gray zone between the uglies who can’t slut it up because desirable men don’t want to fuck them, and the hotties who won’t slut it up because men are willing to give them want they want.**

*Reminder: Sluts haven’t lost their powers of female hypergamous discrimination. They may be quicker to fall into bed, but they’re still not giving beta males the time of night.

**There is a class (a minority) of hot babes — eternal ingenues — who cash in on their looks by acquiring the seed and resources of multiple lovers. Their numbers are few, but their danger to unwary men is considerable.

Some sluts are discreet about their nighttime activities, although they seem to be decreasing of late to make way for what I call the Thirsty Slut, a Declining Empire breed of bed hopper who takes strange pleasure from proclaiming her sluttitude to the world.

As commenter shartiste (nice, bro) writes,

Surely the dark Lord has seen the “I fucked Edelman” photo by now. Further photos revealed her to be a gentleman’s 7. I’d bet it follows some Heartistian law that its always the less hot girls who trumpet to high heavens when they get an alpha dick inside them while the hot ones are more discreet?

Edelman is a Patriots football player. A hot babe who was accustomed to the company of high value men wouldn’t feel a compulsion to publicly announce her role as a passive sexual conquest of a footballer. She has nothing to prove, because her beauty is all the social proof she needs.

But the marginal gentleman’s 7 feels like she has a LOT to prove. Sexy alpha males aren’t a part of her daily life like they are for hotter women. When one of those alphas gravitates into her orbit (or, more typically, she lurches into his orbit) her hindbrain neurons fire a 21 hamster salute and her vagina pops off like a bottle of champagne sitting in the sun all day.

Who knows for certain what’s going through the thirsty slut’s head? Nevertheless, we have clues based on environmental inputs.

– Our attention whore enabling society emboldens her. The “slut” sting still penetrates, but now that the internet is filled with girls hoisting their pummeled pussies aloft like trophies after a big win, the individual slut doesn’t feel so alone and ostracized. Sluttery loves company.

– She thinks (mistakenly) that demonstrating the speediness of her labial parting for sports stars will bring all the other boys to her yard. (It won’t. Preselection doesn’t work for women. It only grosses out relationship-ready men subject to her pubic displays of coition.)

– Maybe she wants to lord it over her equally mediocre female friends in one of those esoteric femme status rituals that make no sense to men. If so, the temporary ego-stroked reward she earns from envious BFFs will be more than paid for by the permanent stain on her SMV record.

– Or it could be as banal a reason as inciting a beloved ex-boyfriend to jealousy. (Note to ladies: This never works on men with options.)

Like her male equivalent — the rejected try-hard beta who loudly insists he “never wanted the bitch” — the thirsty slut is a transparent cartoon of a woman, impressing no one but the mirror and her delusions of social acceptance.

As any man who wasn’t a feeb male feminist or a stepnfetchit white knight would say to the oddly prideful thirsty slut, “Well, OK, that’s great. Now tell us again… what did you get out of it?”

“Edelman!”

Really?

“Sure! He’ll text me any minute.”

Not holding breath.

Why do I call the loud, proud, and indiscreet cock hound a “thirsty” slut? She is thirsty for SOCIAL STATUS. She is thirsty for VALIDATION of her worth as a woman to love. Most conspicuously, she is thirsty for LOVE itself.

This is all female nature 101, but I bring it up because the bigger picture interests me. It seems that in the past few years the frequency of thirsty sluts demeaning themselves in public for a dong hit of attention, and the bravado with which these sluts crow about the achievement of spreading their legs, have increased a hundredFOLD. Not coincidentally, the term of art “slut” has rocketed into the cultural consciousness of late.

Are there simply more sluts now as a percentage of the female population? The available evidence is inconclusive. The population share of sluts appears to be in a holding pattern.

Women are natural LOOKATME exhibitionists. It’s in their nature as the sex with the most to gain from displaying their bodies and faces for male judgment. So it’s no wonder high bandwidth social media provides an irresistible platform upon which women may strut and slut.

Now, combine this incredible environmental shock with another: The retreat from the sexual market by millions of men into video gaming and hardcore internet porn. This is what I mean by an effective sex ratio skew. On the one hand, you have obesities effectively shrinking the pool of attractive women available to men, and on the other you have the de facto disappearance of video gaming and wi-fi fapping men from the dating market.

These kinds of mass convulsions in the human courtship mechanism can cause untold downstream consequences that most people are either incapable of grasping or unwilling to contemplate. The inglorious rise of the Thirsty Slut can best be understood as a visceral ragepout by marginally attractive women to a painful contraction in the availability of the greater beta and alpha males with whom women most desire to form long-term relationships.

Animatronic host society leech Bryan Caplan took a break from spreading the ass cheeks of his nation to report on GSS survey data indicating that monogamy remains the norm among Americans.

The problem with sex surveys of this sort — i.e., the kind that ask in no uncertain terms just how slutty (women) or charming (men) you are — is that people lie. They lie to assuage their egos, and they lie to meet social expectations. And lo and behold, there are attenuating studies which discredit to some extent the reported results of sex surveys. This one, for instance, found that:

Men report more permissive sexual attitudes and behavior than do women. This experiment tested whether these differences might result from false accommodation to gender norms (distorted reporting consistent with gender stereotypes). Participants completed questionnaires under three conditions. Sex differences in self‐reported sexual behavior were negligible in a bogus pipeline condition in which participants believed lying could be detected, moderate in an anonymous condition, and greatest in an exposure threat condition in which the experimenter could potentially view participants’ responses. This pattern was clearest for behaviors considered less acceptable for women than men (e.g., masturbation, exposure to hardcore & softcore erotica). Results suggest that some sex differences in self‐reported sexual behavior reflect responses influenced by normative expectations for men and women.

Men overstate their number of partners to a small degree, and women understate their number of partners to a large degree.

Two anti-Hivemind (or pro-Red Pill, if you wish) conclusions can be drawn from this very special insight about human nature:

1. On the subject of sex, women are bigger liars than men.

2. There are more slutty women running around in the world than sexually parched betaboys think.

I’d add that, despite the above GrateFacts, it’s a good bet that lower-N count monogamy is still hanging on as the norm among Eurasian peoples. Well, serial monogamy, at any rate.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

The goal doesn’t have to be consciously intended for it to be operative. Most feminists aren’t thinking, “I want to enlarge the sphere of acceptable expressions of female sexuality and shrink the sphere of acceptable expressions of male sexuality.” But conscious awareness isn’t necessary for subconscious desires to percolate up through the prefrontal cortex and get rationalized as a moral crusade for an invisible sex inequality.

Vanity Fair had a very favorable write-up of Strayed in a recent issue and at one point states that Strayed “is a champion of promiscuity”.

In the very same issue, VF has a profile of Russell Brand, and gives us this gem:

Which brings us to a sticking point: for all his talk of prayerfulness and humility, there persists an image of Brand as a bounder and a cad. Does this compromise his credibility with women? I put this question to Suzanne Moore, a liberal, feminist columnist for The Guardian who is, in many respects, politically sympathetic to Brand. “It’s funny. I have a 13-year-old daughter, and she absolutely adores him—he seems designed for young people who are just getting into politics,” she said. “But he still has this history, no matter how much he cloaks his sexism—and I’ll call it sexism—in this new spiritual talk. He plays this double game, being very self-aware of his past misdeeds, but I don’t know how much respect he has or shows to women.”

Which begs the following: How would VF cover a Strayed-Brand hookup? Champion of Promiscuity Hooks Up with Misogynist Pig, seems about right.

The feminist schizophrenia in terms of liberated promiscuity coupled with our “rape culture” brings to mind that classic scene in Little Shop of Horrors with Steve Martin as the sadistic dentist and Bill Murray as his masochist patient.

Further proof, as if it was needed, that feminists and weak-minded women who chant along monotonically with their idiocy, really only have as their purpose the construction of a world where men are harangued and shamed for their natural male sexual desire and women are exalted for theirs. Thus, we get nonsense like relabeling skanks as “champions of promiscuity”.

Why do feminists want this world? Because most feminists are ugly, sexual marketplace losers who have to give away their putrid pussies for free to get any action, and they take out their resentment on men and on the normal women who love men as men and want to satisfy men in the way that only feminine women can.

In my experience, gals are extremely aware of ring etiquette. A ring finger is raised like garlic to a vampire — or flashed to evidence availability. This tic comes largely from the subconscious.

In a similar vein, lots of cheap rings and bangles indicate a babe on the hunt. Only one finger will be flamingly naked.

The “ring finger glaring omission” slut tell is almost as reliable as the tramp stamp. A girl with multiple rings on multiple fingers except the one finger that advertises monogamous commitment is practically sending up a Snapper Signal to the city’s gine fighters. Dark knights will converge on that girl to give her the hero sandwich she needs, even if it’s not the hero sandwich she deserves.

Bonus slut tell!

If a girlfriend or wife suddenly requests that you wear a condom, she’s a slut… with another man. No doubt she’ll offer some lame excuse for the change in pound town policy, but don’t believe her. The “abrupt condom policy change” slut tell is evidence that a woman wants to block your seed to allow unobstructed passage of another man’s seed. If you are the other man, and a woman has suddenly permitted you raw god* rights of entry, practice due calendar diligence. Every player should become acquainted with his LTR’s ovulation cycle.

*Ed: This was originally supposed to read “raw dog rights of entry”, but I like the typo better.